Talk:Uma Thurman/archive 1

Date on Pictures
So apparently a photographer was able to take a completely identical picture of Thurman at Cannes two years in a row, huh? IceKeyHunter (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

talk
Where is she born? The text says Boston, while the box on the right hand side says Amherst. --M_Buisman

What is this Letterman ridicule? Is he trying to pretending that "Uma" = "O my"? Please clarify. --Menchi 12:26 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think that they both just had funny-sounding names, so the introduction just sounded amusing. GGano 04:37, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Any particular reason the filmography is in reverse order?

When did this event with David Letterman at the Oscars ceremony occur? I find it hard to believe that it is responsible for any significant part of her fame. --Yath 05:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Previous image illustrating article at Image:PulpFiction1.jpg

This seems to have too much fan information in it. Who cares if she wears size 11 shoes? 202.72.148.102 12:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From the article: 'On May 1, 1998, she married actor Ethan Hawke, whom she had met at the set of Gattaca, and gave birth to a daughter Maya Ray and later on, son Roan.' Um. She gave birth to Maya and Roan on her wedding day?! Somebody who knows, please fix this and delete my question. eritain 03:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the article: "The marriage ended in divorce less than a year later, and in 1967 she married before Thurman's father Robert Thurman (b. 4 August 1941), a professor at Columbia University of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist studies." Along with some grammatical problems, this sentence is factually misleading. It suggests that Robert Thurman was a Columbia professor when he married Uma's mother in 1967, but he actually joined the Columbia faculty in 1990 or thereabouts. In 1967 he was probably still in graduate school at Harvard.

irrelevant facts
size 11? height? completely irrelevant. Lockeownzj00
 * Her height *is* actually relevant...it's tough to find roles when you're taller than the leading men... Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  23:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

lives in Hyde Park, NY? Should this be here? Even if you consider it public knowledge, it is not the same like saying New York City. - anon

not irrelevant although shouldnt be a section for it, facts could be blended into the article. crap writing from the original author(s). deleting and forming into main. - adi

life in India
I have heard that she apparently lived in India for a while and went to school there, can anyone verify this please? thank you. 213.6.10.4 12:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

She went to this school, she is mentioned at the bottom of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Embassy_School —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.134.90.74 (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Facts
This article is biased, and written by an author whose opinion is rather peculiar.

What is this about the Draconian World Order
That seems really out of place for the article. Please explain when it talks about medication.

Reviews of film work?
As Thurman is a film actor and Wikipedia is a site for information rather than trivia - can we fix this with a section backed up by attributable quotes? thegirlinwhite 13:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, like many bios it has been afflicted by celeb-trashyitis. Arniep 17:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture
Can someone find a better picture of her to head the article? 69.182.63.231 01:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I second this one, this is a pretty bad photo The Hobo 06:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We should use a free photo at the top, we have an alternative under personal life section-feel free to swap them over. Arniep 10:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --The Hobo 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why it's a foggy photo that is set for main picture when you have another one, way better, just under it? The point is to have a picture with the best quality possible as opposite to a picture that people like just because she is bursting in laughter. Put the best picutre there, not the one you prefer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.159.242 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Quotes
Whats the point of having a quotes section? Isn't this meant for uhh wikiquote..? Moving it to wikiquote :/

- user: adi kurian - email: adi.conflicted@gmail.com


 * I reverted your deletion because it looked like simple blanking. To avoid that in the future, please use the edit summary when making edits.  It helps immensely when on vandal patrol!  &mdash; Kbh3rd talk  05:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

number of siblings?
Robert Thurman states that he has five children, while this article states that she has three brothers. Could someone in the know fix the apparent discrepancy? - BanyanTree 17:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly did he say he has five? --Fallout boy 09:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you mean this. That is odd, every biography I've seen on her states she has three brothers, and I googled it and I can't find this mysterious fifth sibling. It is possible it's a child from a previous relationship.--Fallout boy 09:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * After looking into it, I found that she does have a half-sister named Taya. Added.--Fallout boy 09:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Filmography wrong way round
the filmography is upside down on this article, should be in chronological order (see all the style guides). please reverse it, or this article will be removed from FA list. Zzzzz 11:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Katie Holmes, today's featured articles, which lists from latest to earliest films chronologically. JackO&#39;Lantern 15:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Wikiproject film decided on this method some time back. Arniep 22:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

no dont see katie holmes as it is also in the same boat (see its talk page), except that article is also being slammed on its talk page for being generally rubbish. of all actor/director/musician/writer FAs there is only 4 including this one and katie holmes that dont follow the guideline of earliest first. policy is here Manual of Style (lists of works). and wikiproject films decided nothing of the sort - see Filmographies which states earliest first. cheers. Zzzzz 22:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you're carrying the same discussion on multiple pages. I defer to my comment on the other page except to point out that both articles zzzzz links are inactive and he just changed the order shown to suit his needs.  Why should I believe you carry this discussion in good faith when you're changing "policy" to fit your argument?  Sad. Cburnett 03:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A further note. Zzzzz changed the Filmographies to fit his argument so he could use it as an authoritative source (despite it being inactive).  I've started discussion on Wikipedia talk:Filmographies to address this since Zzzzz is scattering discussion on many articles' talk page.  Please continue this discussion there. Cburnett 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only that, making threats instead of requests is the tactic of an ass. Wow.  Seems that Zzzzz was never taught how to play nice in the sandbox.
 * I'm only here because I wanted to note that I was surprised to see that Uma had been doing voices in 1984 in Nausicaa... but it turns out that she did a voice overdub in 2005, so I moved the 1984 listing to a 2005 listing with a note that the movie was originally released in 1984.  I felt that this would be a truer chronology of Uma's work. &mdash; X  S  G  16:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thurman likened to Mae West, Greta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich
This quote in the lead paragraph is misleading, I believe. "Thurman's style of acting has been likened to actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood such as Mae West, Greta Garbo, and Marlene Dietrich." As written, this seems to be saying that Thurman's overall acting style, or usual acting style recalls these women but this is not the meaning conveyed in the sources cited.

The first reference to Mae West reads "As played by Uma Thurman, Poison Ivy is perfect, flaunting great looks, a mocking attitude and madly flamboyant disguises. Like Mae West, she mixes true femininity with the winking womanliness of a drag queen. "  This is talking about one characterisation only and the comparison is more to the character than to the actress. It does not refer to Thurman's "acting style" but rather to the persona or perhaps, the attitude she conveyed. It would be more accurate to say something like "Thurman's acting style has been likened to that of a drag queen". Sorry, but that's what is actually being said there. It says Mae West also acted like a drag queen, but does not say that Thurman acted like Mae West, but that she and West project a similar kind of femininity, the same type of femininity projected by drag queens.

The second reference to Garbo and Dietrich reads ""People talk about beautiful actresses," says Tarantino. "Like Cameron Diaz — she's a beautiful girl. But I went to high school with three girls who look like Cameron Diaz. Uma Thurman is a different species. She's up there with Garbo and Dietrich in goddess territory."  Tarantoni is talking about her appearance being goddess-like.  There is not a single word that suggests he is talking about her acting style.  Furthermore Tarantino is talking about his lead actress in the film he is [then] currently promoting Kill Bill.  He's not in the position to be objective, and chances are, he is not.  He's talking in superlatives with Garbo and Dietrich by inference being his greatest "goddesses" but if it had been more beneficial to compare Thurman to Minnie Mouse, I reckon he would have.

To take these quotes and use them as a basis for saying Thurman's acting style has been compared to "actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood such as Mae West, Greta Garbo, and Marlene Dietrich", is a huge stretch. It's simply not an accurate representation of what was said. I would like to remove this from the lead paragraph as its inclusion there suggests it is a viewpoint that is held more strongly than the sources indicate. It bothers me that it's in the lead paragraph as that it's part of the lead paragraph suggested for display on the main page. I would be far happier to see these quotes accurately represented in the article itself in the "Career" section. Rossrs 13:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I went through and rearranged it so that it makes more sense.--Fallout boy 22:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed "numerous" from the Mae West comparison but otherwise the edits are superb. I think it makes the article much stronger by including the quotes.  Thank you for doing this. Rossrs 06:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Thurman began her career as a model and modeled professionally throughout the late 1980s before moving to acting in 1988." When are the late 80's? --Gbleem 00:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

trivia
Has anyone read the new "trivia" section? I think it's fair to say it's worthy of deletion. Anyone second that? Wave of Mutilation 12:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded. There's a strong precedent that featured articles don't do trivia. --Fallout boy 12:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'll third it. Featured article or not.  Agree with edit summary ("trivia - trivial")  Rossrs 13:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Could someone do something against this dumb "Ass rape" Vandalism? The article is on the main site(which is perhaps the reason of the vandalism), so could it be made temporary unchangable or something? --DocBrown 14:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, it was quite easy, opening "Edit this page" viewed the original content of the page - I just saved the page and the original content re-appeared. Nevertheless this gives no secure answer to prevent the next pedophilic "Ass rape" vandalism case... User: Martin Jurek (Czech Rep.) 14:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes, I have done this. I was not logged in at the moment so I recoverd the old articel over my IP and not my Username. I'll watch this articel over the day to see if it was vandalised again. --DocBrown 15:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone whould concider looking this persons IP up and contacting the authorities. This act of vandalism was clearly disturbing and should not go unnoticed. Capt.Nero

I fixed the page again Sunday, June 25, 2006. I agree that Wikipedia needs to have a maehanisim in place to try to prevent tampering with the pages. This could be done by only allowing those who log in to edit any page. This would not infringe upon the philosophy Wikipedia has that anyone can edit the page, it is just restricting it to those who log in so those who violate terms of service can be held accountable. Thank you.

Pronunciation
Her first name is officially pronounced (yoo-ma) not (oo-ma). --PJ Pete
 * If this is so, why has she never corrected anyone about it? It's not like she's a shrinking violet when it comes to putting people straight. JJ

Updates
This new interview is a good source for a lot interesting info straight from Thurman - how she feels about her early career and divorce/post-divorce. Too lazy to add some of this to the article myself, but to anyone working on this page.... Mad Jack 07:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I took out the wikiquote, commons, and spoken section.
I'm still somewhat new to this, and somehow, someone had linked porn onto them. I could be wrong about the origin of the pictures, but removing them removed the pictures as well, so I could be correct.

Height
Before changing Thurman's height, please read WP:RS. Celebheights provides a citation indicating that Thurman's height is 5'11 (actually, a link to an article in Time Magazine). The rest of the claims on that page are not reliable as per WP:RS but rather, unverifiable original research. --Yamla 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You initiated this, so it is you that "changed her height" (actually, changed the referece to her height). As a reliable published source, you cited a gossip magazine in which she claims  she's "like five foot eleven."  (My emphasis.)  This, I should point out, from a person known to be self-conscious about her height, and already cited as having body dysmorphic syndrome.


 * Well, anyway, if an assertion is a gossip magazine is a reliable source, here's another one:
 * http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1217449_1%7C%7C517779%7C0_0_,00.html

Larry Dunn 20:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, really, please read WP:RS. Time Magzine in this context serves as a secondary source.  Entertainment Weekly serves at best as a tertiary source and maybe not even that.  It certainly does not cite its information.  Thurman may well be lying about her height but unless we can find a more reliable source, we have to accept her statement as cited in Time Magazine, as per WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:NOR.  --Yamla 20:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No really, please read those pages yourself, more carefully, as Time Magazine is clearly not a secondary source. First of all, it does not rely on a measurement of her, but only on an assertion by her.  They did not lay her down and measure her, and they did not refer to a source that did so.  There is no difference between the Time source and the ET source because assertions are not ipso facto accurate.  What would be ipso facto accurate here would be a measurement, not an assertion of height.


 * Second, it's fairly ludicrous to artificially inflate an article in Time Magazine as a "secondary source," because secondary sources, as indicated in the pages you cite yourself, are generally scholarly and peer-reviewed, and syntheses of primary sources. Would you seriously assert that someone being quoted as saying she's "like 5'11" is an example of a synthesis of peer-reviewed scholarship?


 * Let's get real here -- it's one pop magazine versus another. Larry Dunn 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In one case, we have a source for the information. In the other, we do not.  This is what makes the Time Magazine claim more reliable than the Entertainment Weekly claim.  Granted, neither are great, but the Time Magazine claim is better.  As an aside, aren't both magazines owned by the same corporation?  --Yamla 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at WP:RS -- none of them are indicated in the Time Mag article. Again, the matter here is one of height, not one of an assertion of height.


 * Example. If I tell my local paper that my house is 28 feet tall, and the local real estate guide simply says that my house is 30 feet tall, the paper is no more a reliable source than the real estate guide.  My assertion does not make it so, in any respect.


 * Let me try to find a compromise. Larry Dunn 21:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Larry, your compromise is entirely satisfactory to me. You have stated that there's some dispute and provided citations to two different figures.  Thank you, I believe this is the best option.  --Yamla 21:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the current edition says Uma is 6'10". Now, she is a very tall woman to be sure, but 6'10"?  That's ridiculous!  She's much shorter than that!

Filmography
I have removed Bee Movie from her filmography as she is no longer listed as being involved in the project on IMDB, or elsewhere.HorseloverFat 08:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Media
Uma thurman stars on Virgin Media (UK Cable TV) advertising campaign —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Engagement Rumor
Thurman's rep confirmed today that she is not engaged to Busson. I'm updating the article to reflect this, with references. 72.185.43.62 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

tone issues in sections on film career
I realize this was an FA at one time, but the sections on her film career read like a Sunday paper A&E puff piece --fluffy and giving an impression (true or not)that its glossing over less successful films and/or emphasizing the best reviews. Being sourced and cited does not mean the article is automatically great. The tone in those sections sound like her PR person made a revision. This article us certainly a B, but those sections need help IMO. --A Good Anon (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A Party Co-Hosted by the ghost of Versace?
How could she have met someone in 2007 at a party co-hosted by Versace? DIdn't he die in the late 1990s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious georgianna (talk • contribs) 12:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a real puzzle. The report can be referenced by any number of reports including this one in the respectable British newspaper the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/shes-got-the-looks-hes-got-the-millions-its-the-perfect-match-856587.html, but it leaves us with just two possibilities. Either they first met at a dinner party eleven years ago and an unknown British back bencher managed to co-host a Milan party with a soon to be assassinated fashion designer...OR...there is someone else called Giani Versace now running the family empire. Can anyone cast any light on the enigma? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I wonder if the dinner was just laid on by Versace the company, which still exists, and was hosted by Tony Blair. Just a thought 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Jillette
Penn Jillette was a regular contributor to the now-defunct PC/Computing magazine in the early 1990s, having a regular back section column between 1990 and 1994. The columns were often as much about Uma Thurman as actual PC computing issues. He would mention her in every column.Lestrade (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Buddhism
In the "Personal Life" section, it states that "Though raised as a Buddhist, she considers herself agnostic." Buddhism, unlike Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, is not a theistic religion. In the original Buddhism, there is no talk of God or gods. It is, instead, a recipe for getting through life with the least suffering. So one can be both a Buddhist and an agnostic. They are not mutually incompatible.Lestrade (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
 * I do not agree with you. Buddhism gives a certain model of universe, which is incompatible with agnosticism. --MathFacts (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Listing her as an agnostic is ridiculous. Even if it happens to be true, that category should not be used as a collection of celebrities who have expressed doubts about religion, or just failed to follow the religion of their parents. Gaohoyt (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A brief Web search will clearly show you Ms Thurman is 'not' a Buddhist. She once responded to questions about her religious affiliation by saying she did not follow any religion, but that her fathers position of being a world expert on Buddhism inevitably meant that religion has had most influence on her life. Johnwrd (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Uma Karuna Thurman Hawke??
Does anyone know if she's still kept the Hawke part of her name from her marriage to Ethan Hawke? Or would she rather now have Busson (if the allegations of her marriage to Arpad Busson pan out)... Tabercil (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo options
Here are three of the best shots I have of her. On reflection, I am going to swap out for number 2 4, because there's something about it I like. But otherwise, if regular editors want something different, I'm not going to get too involved in it. -- >David  Shankbone  18:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Filmography and more
Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and saw on the web Uma Thurman few things that would be good instead started with the parts of the race, note that some have names like Early Work and Hiatus and some not, I might change that along with the awards, put on the table and filmography completely erase the award table. Thank you. I hope I copied an answer to my talk page Paraquad my editing is not as vandalism, and write me if you think good or bad idea. Greetings. Saod053 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been waiting for an answer for two days. Thank you. Saod053 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You've been waiting a day and two hours, not two. Please allow editors time to respond. I have issues with your decision to go ahead and change this, since there is no consensus to combine all of the awards and there is no need to do so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot images
With regards to the resizing of the images from Baron Munchausen and Pulp Fiction, I'm not sure we should even be using them at any size. They are not free images, and the image description pages give a fair use rationale only for their use in the film articles, but not for Thurman's. Usually film screenshots are not used in actor articles - I don't particularly agree that there is never a case for using them - but in this article they do not seem to add vital information to the text. The roles are described, but not in such detail that to not have an image would make the points impossible to understand. They currently do not meet Non-free content criteria, and I don't think they meet #8 either. If the images are to be retained, the article content needs to be expanded to support their inclusion, and a fair use rationale needs to be added to each description page explaining the necessity of their use, otherwise they should be removed. I'll leave this for those editors that are interested in keeping the images, to consider. The images are from notable performances, but this in itself is POV, as there are other notable performances in her filmography, and if these images are used, we could equally justify grabbing screenshots from (for example) Kill Bill or Dangerous Liaisons etc. The latter is described as her "breakthrough" film, so by our own article content it's a more notable performance than Munchausen. Rossrs (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the Munchausen image satisfies the requirements for use of a non-free image; the only textual comments to be illustrated are that she's nude (which doesn't really need much explication, pleasant as many might find pictorial evidence); and that the scene is ased on Botticelli, which isn't demonstrated by the actual screenshot. On the other hand, the Pulp Fiction screenshot relates directly to the quoted WPost comment about her appearance in the film, and demonstrates the point more clearly than any amount of text could -- it's a paradigm of acceptable nonfree use. But could the picture be cropped and enlarged? Right now her face occupies only about a third of the image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Pulp Fiction image is the more relevant of the two and is at least supported by a comment relating to her appearance, especially noting that it is different to her usual appearance. On the other hand, any brief comment about appearance can be made easier to visualize by the use of an image, but in this case the only part of the quote that relates to her appearance is "serenely unrecognizable in a black wig".   Can we not just imagine Thurman wearing a black wig?  Of course we can, but the image makes it easier, and more specific.   I think that perhaps the role is notable enough to allow a little expansion, and perhaps a secondary comment could be included, because her appearance was talked about.  Perhaps something from Tarantino would be good, as it was more than likely his choice.   That would make a stronger framework with which to support the image.  Cropping it would work too, as everything other than Thurman is irrelevant to its use.  I agree with your comments.  Rossrs (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the thinking is keep the Pulp Fiction and ditch (alas, and it will be missed) the Venus. We can always visit it at it's File page. So a slight or mid-expansion of the data on Pulp Fiction and that fixes it? Can the photo be at least a little larger, maybe 300px, if it's the one of the two kept? Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To slightly expand Pulp Fiction is a suggestion, but I think it would help. My aim is not specifically to remove the images, but to ensure that they comply with usage policy, (and remove them only if they don't) so anything that makes their use stronger can only be a good thing. I don't think the size is the main issue, because the size on the image description page is what must comply with image use policy.   Bearing that in mind, choosing a display size rather than a default size in the article, can have an impact on other users depending on what browser they are using.  Cropping it to be more of a square might allow for it to display larger, because we'd lose a good portion of its width. Rossrs (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That picture is HARSH.
Wow. Could there be a worse picture of her? It looks like she just spent the night doing drugs and had nothing to wear except for something out of Prince reject pile. 174.25.84.194 (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you a better recent photo you have taken yourself? We can only use photos that photographers donate to Wikipedia.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, by all means, has anyone taken a picture of Ms. Thurman when she's NOT wearing a rat's nest upon her head? Doubledragons (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've swapped it for another, but I actually liked the previous one. There's another in that same series that might be better, so I'll take a look around for it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's one's a million times better and it doesn't inspire laughter like the other one. We'll save the lulz for Encyclopedia Dramatica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledragons (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Protecting an article about a famous person and, thereby, the person, from harm.
Given the tendency to vandalism of this article in the past, I want to draw attention to a recent news report.

There's no mention in the article of this kind of thing happening to Ms Thurman in the past. But I have read elsewhere that a man was found guilty in 2008 of stalking Ms Thurman over a period of years. Today, November 30 2010, a news report claims that he has violated the "don't contact her, etc" conditions of his parole in a very obvious way, including using the internet. He is now under arrest pending extradition to New York for his actions.

However "celebrities" might bask in public acclaim, etc, they do not ask for this kind of attention and if we adhere to WP standards, we should not allow ourselves to unwittingly facilitate such activity.

I wonder if it's appropriate for those who have suffered stalkers etc. to have their profiles protected from vandalism in some way, such as not allowing people who don't register a bona fide profile to edit articles that are about them? It has been done for other individuals before now. And, as I hinted, WP declares a desire to not render famous people subject to certain things from articles. By taking some precautions to limit vandalism of this article, we remove one way that the person might become a victim. I believe it should be done. (Yes, I am not logged on myself. But the point is still valid) 72.155.201.9 (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to have this article protected from vandals by only allowing registered editors to edit the page. --BwB (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no suggestion at his arrest that Mr Jack Jordon ever tried to contact Ms Thurman via the Internet. He was interviewed by Police Officers in Maryland making enquiries into a number of Telephone calls to Ms Thurman's Office and personal Cell Phone; (T.M.Z. online).92.40.121.84 (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism or no Citation?
I noticed it says on the page of movies Uma Thurman has starred in, it claims of a "Kill Bill Volume 3". Now, I am a huge Fan of the series and such, but I was more or less sure it was complete? Could We find some sort of source confirming this, or remove it if this is simply a Vandal getting or hopes up? Thank you, Mr Ip 96.42.198.2 (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 picture
Repeated attempts to have picture taken down, because I am accused of spamming wikipedia with advertising because I have my name attached to this picture, and that part of her arm is blocking her face. The alternative is an older picture from a decade ago. Jiyangc (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the photographer who has repeatedly added your own image to this article and your name in the caption against the MOS. Now that you have stopped spamming your name, we can address why the image is a poor fit for this article.  The image that you keep adding to the infobox appears to the right of this comment.  Notice how her right arm is blocking the right side of her face and appears to be growing out of her chin.  That is simply not acceptable and I do not understand why you keep adding it other than to promote your photography.  Please stop.  We have many alternatives to your photos and no good reason as to why you keep adding it.  You say it is "current", but it wouldn't matter if you had taken it one second ago, we do not need a photograph of Uma Thurman with her arm blocking her face.  Viriditas (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only is the 2011 photograph more current, it also has better lighting, a less cluttered background, a more attractive expression and appears less grainy at a reasonable infobox size. Her sleeve blocks a small portion of her face – her chin – but still manages to make her look more beautiful than the 2000 Cannes photo. (Actually, the same is true of the other removed photo in which she is resting her chin on her hand – a common pose for professionally photographed models.)


 * Spamming? A relatively new editor/photographer added an image with his name credited in the caption. Another editor deleted that portion of the caption without any edit summary or explanation, and the contributor restored it. Once. An hour or so later, I re-deleted the name from the caption with an edit summary referencing the relevant guideline, and the contributing editor let it stand. One reversion of an unexplained deletion two weeks ago hardly qualifies as "repeatedly added ... your name in the caption against the MOS". Then, after the new image had been in the infobox for just short of three weeks without challenge, it and two other, longer standing, images were removed without discussion for reasons appearing to consist of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unless a clearly superior image (certainly not the 2000 Cannes one) can be found, I think the Jiyangc image should be restored to the infobox. Even if not in the infobox, both it and the image removed from the "Family background" section merit inclusion someplace in the article. (I don't feel strongly either way about the absurdly bowdlerized Tarantino picture, since he is not the subject of the article.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that is not correct. The editor in question has been here since July 2010, and while they have made only 86 edits during that time, their only purpose on Wikipedia is to upload their photos and add their name to the infobox, and they have edit warred over this in multiple articles at least five times,,, , and they have tried to force their photographs into many different articles,,  with the worst of it occurring on Lunar eclipse where they tried to force their image of the moon into the article while it was a featured picture candidate. On the Ben Stiller article they forced an image of the subject that makes him look like an undead zombie into the lead, where it currently remains.  This has been going on for a year even though the edits are few and far in between.  As for the current image, you say it is current and has better lighting and overall composition, but if you did not know who Uma Thurman was, one wouldn't be able to recognize her with what looks like an elbow blcoking her face.  In biographical articles, we use images that the best represent the subject. You claim this image makes her attractive and beautiful, but that is your subjective opinion, and I personally see nothing attractive about looking at a big elbow.  Your mileage may vary. Objectively, her face is blocked and identification is difficult.  We want an image of the subject that is clearly identifiable and shows her from the front or the side.  You also say that the other photograph, where she rests her chin on her hand resembles a professional pose.  It does nothing of the kind.  For such a pose, see the Ben Stiller image I've attached to the left.  That's a professional photograph; the one you refer to is not in any way.  It's amateurish and does not show the subject in the best light.  You say that you don't find the Cannes Red Carpet 2000 image attractive, and I respect your opinion, but this photo shows Uma Thurman "unplugged", turning for the camera with a shy smile on her face as her hair blows around her.  You may not like the photo or its quality, but it is less of a pose and more of a natural capture, and it clearly identifies the subject.  However, I am not attached to any photograph.  I just want the subject to be identified in the best way possible.  So, let's look at what image the 54 other wikis are using and choose the most common one.  We can all agree that if 54 wikis have chosen to use one image over another, then there is probably a good reason and we should follow suit. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm really not trying to promote a photography business on Wikipedia. I am a musician foremost and I do a bit of photography on the side, mostly as a hobby.  I tried to credit my picture in the captions and did not in any way try linking to a website.  However, I do believe Uma looks more flattering than the Cannes version, and my repeated and futile attempts at preventing my picture from being removed is for this reason.  Spamming?  You've got to be kidding me.  Jiyangc (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Lesson: Using Wikipedia for self-promotion won't be tolerated. That said, I would be glad to see those Cannes images go. The one in question IS a better photo, and so is the Tribeca one. As for Tarantino, he has his own page. Gaohoyt (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we looking at the same photos? I'm looking at a photo of Uma wearing a blue top with a white jacket, with what appears to be her arm blocking her face, making it look like her arm was amputated and all that left is a stump. How is this superior to any photo we have of her? It isn't. Also, this is not the first time the photographer in question has uploaded bad photos of celebrities, so this is part of a wider pattern. I have no objection to another image being used, but this one has got to go. It is not representative of the subject at all and makes it difficult if not impossible to identify her. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Kill Bill in the lead
I think Kill Bill should be mentioned as one of her notable roles in the lead. It's certainly more of a notable role than Hysterical Blindness. Plus, in this article it reads: "Her next film was Tarantino's Kill Bill, which relaunched her career." It did relaunch her career and deserves a mention. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it was her most widely-seen movie. Someone could check the box office figures and confirm this. Gaohoyt (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Counting Box office gross for both volumes, it even beats Pulp Fiction. I only realized now that Hysterical Blindness was a little HBO miniseries. In what universe does this user think it's not important. Screw it, I'm putting Kill Bill in the lead. It is undeniably her second most recognizable role, maybe even her most recognizable role. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Parents bio in family section
I removed the bios of her parents. Maybe add a little more material in the already established early life section, but no need for that level of detail on parents, they already have their own articles that are linked. --Malerooster (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Uma Thurman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100430203017/http://www.metroxpress.dk:80/dk/article/2010/04/29/10/4351-83/index.xml to http://www.metroxpress.dk/dk/article/2010/04/29/10/4351-83/index.xml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120815151529/http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/882:1170/1/Uma_Thurman.htm to http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biography_story/882:1170/1/Uma_Thurman.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140423030632/http://www.seattlepi.com/entertainment/tv/tvguide/article/Uma-Thurman-and-Arpad-Busson-Call-Off-Engagement-5422053.php to http://www.seattlepi.com/entertainment/tv/tvguide/article/Uma-Thurman-and-Arpad-Busson-Call-Off-Engagement-5422053.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Uma Thurman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060314025704/http://www.independentfilmquarterly.com/ifq/interviews/umathurman.htm to http://www.independentfilmquarterly.com/ifq/interviews/umathurman.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060207080108/http://movies.yahoo.com:80/movie/contributor/1800013025/bio to http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1800013025/bio
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041209155044/http://www.ugo.com:80/channels/filmtv/features/killbill/umathurman.asp to http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmtv/features/killbill/umathurman.asp
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070330024712/http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5939241?rnd=1136580280652&has-player=unknown to http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5939241?rnd=1136580280652&has-player=unknown

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uma Thurman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060716135030/http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Uma_Thurman.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Uma_Thurman.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)